From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7793 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2006 13:54:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 7785 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2006 13:54:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:54:08 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GpmMY-0002jC-1J; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:54:06 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:54:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker , Robert Dewar Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Single stepping and threads Message-ID: <20061130135405.GA10377@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Robert Dewar , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20061129052942.GA16029@nevyn.them.org> <20061129055915.GM9968@adacore.com> <20061129132535.GA28834@nevyn.them.org> <456E99DE.9090009@adacore.com> <20061129052942.GA16029@nevyn.them.org> <20061129055915.GM9968@adacore.com> <20061129132535.GA28834@nevyn.them.org> <20061129163844.GN9968@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <456E99DE.9090009@adacore.com> <20061129163844.GN9968@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-11/txt/msg00250.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 08:38:44AM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > One of my coworkers expressed his opinion as follow: > > << > I would find it confusing if "step" and "next" behave differently with > respect to threads, because they seem like basically the same thing. > "Next is just like step, except that it goes over calls" seems simple to > me. "Next is just like step, except that it goes over calls, and has > some subtle difference regarding threads" seems more complicated to me. > > So I would suggest leaving the default as "off", or else changing it > to "on". > >> Fortunately, step and next would not behave differently. It would actually be more like this: When GDB advances the program by a small amount, a single instruction at a time, only the current thread runs. When GDB advances the program by a large amount using a breakpoint, for instance to skip a function or a dynamic linker trampoline, other threads are allowed to run. On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 03:44:14AM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote: > There certainly are systems that do not support this. In any case I > think it would be a very bad idea to change the default. Why? I am looking for reasons beyond inertia. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery